CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer - Transcript

CNN Late Editon with Wolf Blitzer - Transcript

BLITZER: President Bush, in his State of the Union address Wednesday night, saying the United States would continue to take the fight to the terrorists.

Welcome back to "LATE EDITION."

Joining us now, two leading members of the United States Senate: Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is the Senate's number-two Republican. Democrat Christopher Dodd of Connecticut is a key member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Senators, welcome back to "LATE EDITION."

Let me start, Senator Dodd, with you. Senator Kennedy says Defense Secretary Rumsfeld should resign. Senator Kerry says so. What do you say?

SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD (D), CONNECTICUT: No, I don't the resignation. I appreciate the call for that. But I'm more interested in the policy issues than resignations at this point.

I gather he submitted his resignation twice, and the president didn't accept it, so...

BLITZER: On the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

DODD: Yes. The policy issue is where we need to address.

BLITZER: Well, what you heard in the interview we just conducted, were you reassured by him, remain concerned about him on the policy issues?

DODD: I remain concerned about it.

You really didn't get an answer to your question, that is, to what extent do we have security forces in Iraq achieving the level of skill that they could replace American soldiers?

Putting aside the question of timetables, the ultimate question we have to ask is, when are the Iraqis going to be able to defend whatever form of democracy they embrace? Are they going to be able to do it on their own?

We cannot be the permanent guarantors.

BLITZER: He said there are too many uncertainties right now, he can't give an answer.

DODD: I understand. I'm not expecting him to come down to the exact number, but at least a ball-park number.

We know we're way short of that. You pointed to Senator Biden's article in The Washington Post today, in which he laid that out. We have numbers running anywhere from around 4,000 to 7,000; if you listen to Mr. Cordesman or others, up to 136,000.

It's a very vague spread there, as to what the actual numbers are.

BLITZER: Anthony Cordesman.

DODD: We ought to get that.

BLITZER: He's an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Tony Cordesman.

But why not give the American public at least some sort of timetable-it doesn't have to be precise-for an exit strategy?

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MAJORITY WHIP: Because it's something we simply cannot outline in advance. We will not know exactly how this is going to play out. You can't predict every single thing that's going to happen. I mean, Eisenhower would have been fired on D-Day had we had 24-hour television coverage in those days.

Look, we had a great election last Sunday. Iraqis showed great courage.

I was there a few weeks ago; it certainly doesn't make me an expert. I got a chance to watch the General Patraeus's operation, training the soldiers.

Secretary Rumsfeld made it clear in the Wall Street Journal the other day that a number of those soldiers did a great job on election day. Are they what we want them to be? No. But we've made a lot of progress, and we're going to continue to make progress.

And we won't leave-just so there's no misunderstanding about it-we will not leave until they are ready to take over the job of defending their country.

BLITZER: Were you reassured by what happened last Sunday, the Iraqi elections?

DODD: It was a great day. It was certainly inspirational to watch the, what was it, roughly 8 million Iraqis that showed up to vote under the most extreme circumstances. It's extremely important. It was extremely worthwhile.

What comes after this now? What sort of a government gets formed? Are they going to be inclusive? Will moderate Sunnis be allowed to participate? Will the Kurds really seek to be a part of an Iraqi country in the coming weeks and months?

So the election was-obviously, none of that would have happened without a good election. They've had that. What happens in the weeks and months now after this will really determine how successful that election was.

BLITZER: Secretary Rumsfeld said he did not believe it was realistic to assume that the Shiite majority in Iraq right now would create an Islamic theocracy in that country, although a lot of experts are fearful of that.

MCCONNELL: I don't think there's any chance of that. We met with a lot of the Shiite leadership a couple of weeks ago. They're acutely aware of the need to reach out to the Sunnis. They knew even then the turnout was going to be low in the four provinces that are largely Sunni-dominated, where more of the security problems are going to be.

Watch the appointments they make. Watch the appointments that they make during this interim period. They're going to reach out to the Sunnis, bring a lot of them into the government.

And remember, there are two more elections this year. The Sunnis will have a chance, in effect, to veto the new constitution, because if only three of the provinces do not ratify the new constitution, it won't go into effect. So they have a lot of power to ensure that they're adequately represented in the new government.

BLITZER: Are you as confident as Senator McConnell?

DODD: Not as confident. I hope it happens, because if it doesn't happen, this will not work. It will fracture, and you'll have civil war in the country. And it's important we encourage that to be the case, to be inclusive.

There are some reports already that they want to make more of their constitution a religious document than a secular document. And I hope that's not the case. There is certainly going to be some of it, but it will really be incumbent upon this newly elected assembly to really insist upon invitation, the idea of some sort of a federalist arrangement here.

Because clearly, when you had the sort of de facto referendum on the part of the Kurds, using the election of last Sunday, to actually ask Kurds whether or not they wanted to be part of a greater Iraq, the answer came back 2-1, no. That's troublesome. That's worrisome.

So it will be very important that this assembly reaches out to the Kurdish population to make sure they're going to be a part of a larger federal state.

BLITZER: Can the U.S. live with a nuclear weapon in Iran?

MCCONNELL: That is, of course, a very difficult question. We certainly want Iran not to become a member of the nuclear family.

The British and the French and the Germans are working on that in a multilateral approach.

We've just demonstrated with the welcoming-or we're in the process of welcoming Libya into the community of non-nuclear states, and they're beginning to see the benefits of that.

Hopefully, the Iranians will conclude that it's not in their best interest to become a nuclear power.

BLITZER: But if they reject that and go ahead and build the bomb...

MCCONNELL: Well, that's a hypothetical I don't think we have to address. I mean, everybody's working on it. The British, the Germans and the French are taking the lead. We're supporting what they're doing.

BLITZER: Well, I guess the question is, should there be a military option for the U.S.?

MCCONNELL: I don't think we ever state whether there's a military option or not. That's something we never announce in advance.

BLITZER: What do you think?

DODD: Well, I don't think you ought to eliminate an option either.

But I would like to see us work more. The response of Secretary Rice to the German, French and British initiative is basically, "We have nothing to say." I think that's a mistake.

No matter who runs Iran, you're going to have the possibility of them wanting to acquire nuclear capabilities. Even if the reformers take over, I don't think they're going to drop that option. So, it's going to take work. And I would like to see us become more a part of it.

The president almost suggested that the other evening in the State of the Union. He talked about obviously the support for Hamas and other terrorist organizations coming out of Iran. He's right on that. He then quickly said, of course, we ally ourself with the reform elements in Iran. Sort of a mixed message here.

It seems to me we ought to be engaged with our colleagues in Europe. It's a good opportunity for us to rebuild the relationships in Europe and do something meaningful about trying to minimize the option of a military strike in Iran to deal with a nuclear capability.

BLITZER: Condoleezza Rice is in Israel right now, meeting with Israelis and Palestinians. Tomorrow there's a summit meeting. On Tuesday, the new Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, will meet with Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister.

I assume both of you support the $350 million aid package that the president proposed in his State of the Union address for the Palestinians.

Will you, though, demand conditions be attached to granting that money to the Palestinians?

MCCONNELL: Well, there have traditionally been some conditions attached.

But, look, they're heading in the right direction. They just had a real election, which is unique for the Palestinians. In the old days, you could vote for Arafat or no one else. Elections are breaking out all over, in the most unusual places. I think the Palestinians deserve our support as they move toward what looks like the best opening we've had for a final peace settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis in our lifetime.

BLITZER: What do you think?

DODD: I'm very optimistic about it.

I, first of all, want to commend President Mubarak and King Abdullah. They've done a tremendous job in bringing these people together.

There's real hope here, I mean real hope, maybe for the first time in years.

My hope would be the administration would stay engaged. I think the failure to be as engaged, disengaged as we were over the past four years was a problem. I think the fact that Condoleezza Rice is there is very important.

And I agree with Mitch. I wouldn't-there may be some conditionality here, but we ought to send a message that we're prepared to really back this effort. If, in fact, the Palestinian leadership is able to convince their people that this is the right route to follow, then we ought to be willing to back that up with some real assistance to them so they can get on their feet.

MCCONNELL: And the only thing I would add is, the only reason the administration was not engaged was that Arafat was there. Now that Arafat is gone, you have a legitimate leader, popularly elected, who wants, genuinely wants peace. So the conditions are changed, and so the administration is much more engaged.

DODD: Well, there were other elections there, and there were people chosen in that period of time. Arafat was alive, but we certainly could have done more, in my view.

BLITZER: All right, we're going to continue this conversation, but we have to take a quick break.

Much more coming up. When we come back, we'll turn to some domestic issues, including the future of Social Security. Is the U.S. retirement program headed for collapse?

"LATE EDITION" continues right after this.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt.

(AUDIENCE BOOING)

If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be dramatically higher taxes, massive new borrowing or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: President Bush, in his State of the Union address, getting some boos when he spoke about the need to reform Social Security.

Welcome back to "LATE EDITION."

We're talking with Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Democratic Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut.

Senator Dodd, were you among those booing the president?

DODD: Oh, no, no, I don't believe in doing that.

But the president, not that he should be booed by members of Congress, but to say, as he did, that by 2042 this program will be totally bankrupt is just totally false, totally false. There isn't an analysis in the world that would draw that conclusion.

At worse, by 2052, it may not -- 20 percent, somewhere around 20 percent of the fund, may not be there. But 80 percent of the Social Security trust fund will be intact 50 years from now.

This is not a crisis. This is an effort to eliminate and so fundamentally alter Social Security-maybe the best program we've ever provided in the 20th century, taking seniors out of poverty, where only 10 percent of them today are in poverty.

Social Security has made a huge difference. This president want to eliminate it.

BLITZER: Do you disagree with that, Senator McConnell?

MCCONNELL: I think we're quoting the wrong president. President Clinton was saying in 1998 and again in 1999 that we ought to go in and tackle this program.

The current Democratic leader, Harry Reid, said in 1999 that, even with regard to the controversial personal retirement accounts, that he was open to that.

Senator Durbin, the new Democratic whip, was saying in 1998 there are going to be huge benefit cuts down the road; we ought to get about solving this problem now.

Look, my attitude is, why don't the Democrats show us their plan?

BLITZER: All right.

Is there a Democratic plan?

DODD: Well, sure. There are all sorts of them. If you want to save Social Security, we can do any number of things. That's not what the president's talking about.

He's talking about borrowing $4.5 trillion-does nothing in his plan. He hasn't said a word yet on how he'd save Social Security-laid out some options the other night.

We could just take the tax cuts, take one-third of the tax cuts he wants to make permanent by 2006, just a third of them, let the other $8 billion go ahead-that money alone would be enough to meet the $2.2 trillion shortfall over the 50 years for Social Security. That alone solves Social Security.

Now, if you want to change the program and privatize it as the president does, that's a whole separate issue.

BLITZER: Senator McConnell?

MCCONNELL: Look, the point is, do we have a problem here that we ought to address or not?

I think what I see the Democrats doing is sticking their heads in the sand, which is not what they were doing in the late '90s when there was a Democratic president, saying, "We don't want to deal with this, unless it's to raise taxes."

DODD: No, no, no. That's not raising taxes. That's just taking the tax cut and reducing it a bit. That's a separate issue.

Saving Social Security is not complicated. There are any number of things that could be done to make up the 20 percent.

Let me state again: Congressional Budget Office, even the White House analysts, will tell you, in 2042 to 2052, 80 percent of the Social Security trust fund will be there. That's a 20 percent shortfall 40 to 50 years from now.

That is easy to make up, that shortfall, and without cutting benefits at all.

Now, you want to do other things...

BLITZER: The whole debate-sounds like the whole debate is over these individual, these private retirement...

MCCONNELL: No.

DODD: And that's a separate issue.

MCCONNELL: Let's just put that aside. Let's just put the personal retirement accounts aside. Do we or don't we want to save the Social Security system for our children?

BLITZER: Everybody's suggesting that.

MCCONNELL: Well, we don't have a single Democrat that I know of, with the possible exception maybe of Chris's colleague from Connecticut, who wants to sit down on a bipartisan basis and address the problem.

DODD: Oh, no, we'll sit down, absolutely sit down.

I believe that-I've always been a strong supporter of individual retirement accounts, for instance, the 401(k)s we were talking about a minute ago. We ought to be promoting more of that.

To go and say to someone, as someone suggested in an editorial comment, "Your retirement plan is in deep trouble, so instead of encouraging you to save more to strengthen it, we want you to borrow more to strengthen it"-here we are already with $7 trillion in debt. You want to borrow $4.5 trillion more.

BLITZER: Very quickly, because we're almost out of time, are you willing to-the president says all the options are...

DODD: To save Social Security...

BLITZER: ... on the table. Are you willing to talk to him to come up with some sort of compromise?

DODD: Saving Social Security, absolutely, and there are all sorts of ideas that can save it.

Privatizing Social Security is not saving Social Security.

BLITZER: That sounds like one option that he's not accepting.

MCCONNELL: Well, fine, let's see what his plan is. Because four years from now, the baby-boomers start retiring. Young people think they're likely to see a UFO than they are a Social Security check.

DODD: No, no. That's because you keep telling them that.

MCCONNELL: They're right, because the benefit cuts or the tax increases that would be required to sustain the program as it currently is are completely unacceptable.

BLITZER: Would you be willing to hold back on making the tax cut permanent?

MCCONNELL: We're willing...

DODD: Just a fraction of it.

MCCONNELL: ... to sit down and talk to them. They don't want to talk. They want to circle the wagons, say there's no problem, no problem, stick their head in the sand.

DODD: No.

BLITZER: They're talking right now. We'll see what-we'll see what...

DODD: It's a great issue. We thank them for the gift, actually.

BLITZER: We have to, unfortunately, leave it right there.

Senator Dodd, thanks very much.

DODD: Thank you very much.

BLITZER: Senator McConnell, thanks to you as well.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0502/06/le.01.html